2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.

 Preface | v

PREFACE
This document describes a pavement design methodology that is based on engineering mechanics and
has been validated with extensive road test performance data. This methodology is termed mecha-
nistic-empirical (M-E) pavement design, and it represents a major change from the pavement design
methods in practice today.

Interested agencies have already begun implementation activities in terms of sta training, collection of
input data (materials library, trac library, etc.), acquiring of test equipment, and setting up eld sec-
tions for local calibration. This manual presents the information necessary for pavement design engi-
neers to begin to use the MEPDG design and analysis method.

This manual refers to AASHTOWare Pavement Me Design, M-E Pavement design software which
is commercially available through AASHTOWare, AASHTOs software development program (see
http://www.aashtoware.org/Pavement/Pages/default.aspx). AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design has
been revised from the software described in the previous edition of this manual based upon evaluations
performed by state Departments of Transportation and others in the community of practice.

The following table summarizes the key dierences noted between the format and calibration factors
used in the MEPDG version 1.1 software and the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software.

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
vi | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide

Table i-1. Summary of Key Differences in Software Format and Calibration Factors

Format and AASHTOWare Pavement

Calibration Factors MEPDG Version 1.1 ME Design
Output Format Excel-based PDF- and Excel-based
Climatic Data in Output Summary Not included Included
Axle Configuration Data in Output Not included Included
Summary
Special Axle Load Configuration Included Not included
Reflection Cracking Not included Included
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) CTE for Basalt of 4.6 CTE for Basalt of 5.2
PCC Zero Stress Temperature PCC Zero Stress Temperature PCC Set Temperature
(Range 60o to 120oF) (Range 70o to 212o F)
Heat Capacity of Asphalt Pavement Default value of 0.23 BTU/lb-oF Default value of 0.28 BTU/lb-oF
Thermal Conductivity of Asphalt Default value of 0.67 BTU/(ft) Default value of 1.25 BTU/(ft)(hr)(F)
Pavement (hr)(F)
Surface Shortwave Absorptivity Default value of 0.95 Default value of 0.85
Global Calibration Coefficient for kS1 granular of 1.63 kS1 granular of 2.03
Unbound Materials and Soils in Flexible
Pavement Subgrade Rutting Model
Global Field Calibration Coefficients kf2 of -3.9492 kf2 of 3.9492
in the Fatigue Cracking Prediction Model kf3 of -1.281 kf3 of 1.281
in Flexible Pavement
Global Field Calibration Coefficients in the kt (Level 1) of 5.0 kt (Level 1) of 1.5
Thermal Cracking Model for HMA kt (Level 2) of 1.5 kt (Level 2) of 0.5
kt (Level 3) of 3.0 kt (Level 3) of 1.5
Global Field Calibration Coefficients in the k2r of 0.4791 k2 of 1.5606
Rut Depth Prediction Model k3r of 1.5606 k3 of 0.4791
Calibration Coefficients in the Rigid C1 of 1.29 C1 of 1.0184
Pavement Faulting Prediction Model C2 of 1.1 C2 of 0.91656
C3 of 0.001725 C3 of 0.0021848
C4 of 0.0008 C4 of 0.0008837
C7 of 1.2 C7 of 1.83312
Calibration Coefficient in the Rigid APO of 195.789 C3 of 216.8421
Pavement Punchout Prediction Model aPO of 19.8947 C4 of 33.15789
bPO of -0.526316 C5 of -0.58947

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 | vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose of Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Overview of the MEPDG Design Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Referenced Documents and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 Test Protocols and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Material Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Standard Practices and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 Referenced Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Significance and Use of the MEPDG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1 Performance Indicators Predicted by the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design. . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 MEPDG General Design Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 New Flexible Pavement and HMA Overlay Design Strategies Applicable
for Use with AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4 New Rigid Pavement, PCC Overlay, and Restoration of Rigid Pavement Design
Strategies Applicable for Use with AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.5 Design Features and Factors Not Included Within the MEPDG Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. Terminology and Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.1 General Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2 Hierarchical Input Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3 Truck Trac Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.4 Smoothness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.5 Distress or Performance Indicator TermsHMA-Surfaced Pavements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.6 Distress or Performance Indicator TermsPCC-Surfaced Pavements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5. Performance Indicator Prediction MethodologiesAn Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.1 Selecting the Input Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2 Calibration Factors Included in AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.3 Distress Prediction Equations for Flexible Pavements and HMA Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.4 Distress Prediction Equations for Rigid Pavements and PCC Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6. General Project Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.1 Design/Analysis Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2 Construction and Trac Opening Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
7. Selecting Design Criteria and Reliability Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7.1 Recommended Design-Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7.2 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
8. Determining Site Conditions and Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
8.1 Truck Trac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
8.2 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
viii | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide

8.3 Foundation and Subgrade Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

8.4 Existing Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
9. Pavement Evaluation for Rehabilitation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
9.1 Overall Condition Assessment and Problem Definition Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
9.2 Data Collection to Define Condition Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
9.3 Analysis of Pavement Evaluation Data for Rehabilitation Design Considerations. . . . . . . . 103
10. Determination of Material Properties for New Paving Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
10.1 Material Inputs and the Hierarchical Input Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
10.2 HMA Mixtures; Including SMA, Asphalt-Treated or Stabilized Base Layers, and
Asphalt Permeable-Treated Base Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
10.3 PCC Mixtures, Lean Concrete, and Cement-Treated Base Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
10.4 Chemically Stabilized Materials; Including Lean Concrete and Cement-Treated Base Layers 116
10.5 Unbound Aggregate Base Materials and Engineered Embankments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
11. Pavement Design Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
11.1 New Flexible Pavement Design StrategiesDeveloping the Initial Trial Design . . . . . . . . 129
11.2 New Rigid Pavement Design StrategiesDeveloping the Initial Trial Design . . . . . . . . . . 136
12. Rehabilitation Design Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
12.1 General Overview of Rehabilitation Design Using the AASHTOWare Pavement
ME Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
12.2 Rehabilitation Design with HMA Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
12.3 Rehabilitation Design with PCC Overlays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
13. Interpretation and Analysis of the Results of the Trial Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
13.1 Summary of Inputs for Trial Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
13.2 Reliability of Trial Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
13.3 Supplemental Information (Layer Modulus, Truck Applications, and Other Factors) . . . . 183
13.4 Predicted Performance Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
13.5 Judging the Acceptability of the Trial Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Abbreviations And Terms

Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Index
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 List of Figures | ix

LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Conceptual Flow Chart of the Three-Stage Design/Analysis Process for the AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1-2 Typical Differences Between Empirical Design Procedures and an Integrated M-E
Design System, in Terms of HMA-Mixture Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1-3 Typical Differences Between Empirical Design Procedures and an Integrated M-E Design
System, in Terms of PCC-Mixture Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1-4 Flow Chart of the Steps That Are More Policy Decision-Related and Are Needed
to Complete an Analysis of a Trial Design Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1-5 Flow Chart of the Steps Needed to Complete an Analysis of a Trial Design Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . 8
3-1 New (Including Lane Reconstruction) Flexible Pavement Design Strategies That Can Be
Simulated with AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design (Refer to Section 11.1);
Layer Thickness Not to Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3-2 HMA Overlay Design Strategies of Flexible, Semi-Rigid, and Rigid Pavements That Can Be
Simulated with AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design (Refer to Section 12.2); Layer Thickness
Not to Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3-3 New (Including Lane Reconstruction) Rigid Pavement Design Strategies That Can Be
Simulated with AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design (Refer to Section 11.2);
Layer Thickness Not to Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3-4 PCC Overlay Design Strategies of Flexible, Semi-Rigid, and Rigid Pavements That Can Be
Simulated with AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design (Refer to Section 12.3);
Layer Thickness Not to Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5-1 Graphical Illustration of the Five Temperature Quintiles Used in AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design to Determine HMA-Mixture Properties for Load-Related Distresses . . . 38
5-2 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Total Rutting Resulting from Global Calibration Process. 41
5-3 Comparison of Cumulative Fatigue Damage and Measured Alligator Cracking Resulting
from Global Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5-4 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Lengths of Longitudinal Cracking (Top-Down
Cracking) Resulting from Global Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5-5 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Transverse Cracking Resulting from Global
Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5-6 Comparison of Measured and Predicted IRI Values Resulting from Global Calibration
Process of Flexible Pavements and HMA Overlays of Flexible Pavements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5-7 Comparison of Measured and Predicted IRI Values Resulting from Global Calibration
Process of HMA Overlays of PCC Pavements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5-8 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Percentage JPCP Slabs Cracked Resulting from
Global Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5-9 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Transverse Cracking of Unbounded JPCP
Overlays Resulting from Global Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5-10 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Transverse Cracking for Restored JPCP
Resulting from Global Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
x | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide

5-11 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Transverse Joint Faulting for New JPCP
Resulting from Global Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5-12 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Transverse Joint Faulting for Unbound JPCP
Overlays Resulting from Global Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5-13 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Transverse Joint Faulting for Restored (Diamond
Grinding) JPCP Resulting from Global Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5-14 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Punchouts for New CRCP Resulting from Global
Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5-15 Comparison of Measured and Predicted IRI Values for New JPCP Resulting from Global
Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5-16 Comparison of Measured and Predicted IRI Values for New CRCP Resulting from Global
Calibration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
7-1 Design Reliability Concept for Smoothness (IRI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
9-1 Steps and Activities for Assessing the Condition of Existing Pavements for Rehabilitation
Design (Refer to Table 9-2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
11-1 Flow Chart for Selecting Some Options to Minimize the Effect of Problem Soils on
Pavement Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
11-2 Limiting Modulus Criteria of Unbound Aggregate Base and Subbase Layers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
12-1 Steps for Determining a Preferred Rehabilitation Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
12-2 Flow Chart of Rehabilitation Design Options Using HMA Overlays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
12-3 Site Features Conducive to the Selection of the Rubblization Process for Rehabilitating
PCC Pavements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
12-4 Recommendations for a Detailed Investigation of the PCC Pavement to Estimate Remaining
Life and Identifying Site Features and Conditions Conducive to the Rubblization Process. . . . . 161
12-5 Evaluate Surface Condition and Distress Severities on Selection of Rubblization Option . . . . . 162
12-6 Foundation Support Conditions Related to the Selection of the Rubblization Process. . . . . . . . 163
12-7 Overall Design Process for Major PCC Rehabilitation Strategies of All Pavement Types. . . . . . 166

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 List of Tables | xi

LIST OF TABLES
5-1 Typical Input Levels Used in Recalibration Eort of AASHTOWare Pavement
ME Design Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5-2 Reection Cracking Model Regression Fitting Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5-3 Assumed Eective Base LTE for Dierent Base Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7-1 AASHTOWare Pavement ME DesignDesign Criteria or Threshold
Values Recommended for Use in Judging the Acceptability of a Trial Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
7-2 Suggested Minimum Levels of Reliability for Dierent Functional Classications
of the Roadway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
8-1 Minimum Sample Size (Number of Days per Year) to Estimate the Normalized Axle-
Load DistributionWIM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
8-2 Minimum Sample Size (Number of Days per Season) to Estimate the Normalized Truck
Trac DistributionAutomated Vehicle Classiers (AVC) Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
8-3 TTC Group Description and Corresponding Truck Class Distribution Default Values
Included in AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
8-4 Denitions and Descriptions for the TTC Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8-5 Summary of Soil Characteristics as a Pavement Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
9-1 Checklist of Factors for Overall Pavement Condition Assessment and Problem Denition . . . 87
9-2 Hierarchical Input Levels for a Pavement Evaluation Program to Determine Inputs for
Existing Pavement Layers for Rehabilitation Design Using AASHTOWare Pavement
ME Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
9-3 Field Data Collection and Evaluation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
9-4 Guidelines for Obtaining Non-Materials Input Data for Pavement Rehabilitation. . . . . . . . . . . 94
9-5 Use of Deection Basin Test Results for Selecting Rehabilitation Strategies and in
Estimating Inputs for Rehabilitation Design with AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design . . . . 96
9-6 Summary of Destructive Tests, Procedures, and Inputs for the AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
9-7 Models/Relationships Used for Determining Level 2 E or Mr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
9-8 Models Relating Material Index and Strength Properties to Mr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
9-9 Distress Types and Severity Levels Recommended for Assessing Rigid Pavement
Structural Adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
9-10 Distress Types and Levels Recommended for Assessing Current Flexible Pavement
Structural Adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
10-1 Major Material Types for AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
10-2 Asphalt Materials and the Test Protocols for Measuring the Material Property Inputs
for New and Existing HMA Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
10-3 Recommended Input Parameters and Values; Limited or No Testing Capabilities for HMA
(Input Levels 2 or 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
10-4 PCC Material Input Level 1 Parameters and Test Protocols for New and Existing PCC . . . . . 117
10-5 Recommended Input Parameters and Values; Limited or No Test Capabilities for PCC
Materials (Input Levels 2 or 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
xii | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide

10-6 Chemically Stabilized Materials Input Requirements and Test Protocols for New and
Existing Chemically Stabilized Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
10-7 Recommended Input Levels 2 and 3 Parameters and Values for Chemically Stabilized
Materials Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
10-8 C-Values to Convert the Calculated Layer Modulus Values to an Equivalent Resilient
Modulus Measured in the Laboratory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
10-9 Unbound Aggregate Base, Subbase, Embankment, and Subgrade Soil Material
Requirements and Test Protocols for New and Existing Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
10-10 Recommended Input Levels 2 and 3 Input Parameters and Values for Unbound Aggregate
Base, Subbase, Embankment, and Subgrade Soil Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
11-1 General IRI Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
11-2 Range and Median Slab/Base Friction Coecients by Base Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
12-1 Denitions of the Surface Condition for Input Level 3 Pavement Condition Ratings and
Suggested Rehabilitation Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
12-2 Candidate Repair and Preventive Treatments for Flexible, Rigid, and Composite Pavements . . . 149
12-3 Summary of Major Rehabilitation Strategies and Treatments Prior to Overlay Placement
for Existing HMA and HMA/PCC Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
12-4 Data Required for Characterizing Existing PCC Slab Static Elastic Modulus for HMA
Overlay Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
12-5 Recommendations for Performance Criteria for HMA Overlays of JPCP and CRCP . . . . . . . 157
12-6 Recommendations for Modifying Trial Design to Reduce Distress/Smoothness for HMA
Overlays of JPCP and CRCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
12-7 PCC Rehabilitation OptionsStrategies to Correct Surface and Structural Deciencies
of All Type of Existing Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
12-8 Summary of Key Aspects of Joint Design and Interlayer Friction for JPCP Overlays . . . . . . . . 168
12-9 Data Required for Characterizing Existing PCC Slab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
12-10 Description of Existing Pavement Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
12-11 Summary of Factors That Inuence Rehabilitated JPCP Distress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
12-12 Guidance on How to Select the Appropriate Design Features for Rehabilitated JPCP Design. . 174
12-13 Recommendations for Modifying Trial Design to Reduce Distress/Smoothness for JPCP
Rehabilitation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
12-14 Summary of Factors That Inuence Rehabilitated CRCP Distress and Smoothness . . . . . . . . 177
12-15 Guidance on How to Select the Appropriate Design Features for Rehabilitated CRCP Design . .178
13-1 Reliability Summary for Flexible Pavement Trial Design Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
13-2 Reliability Summary for JPCP Trial Design Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
13-3 Guidance for Modifying HMA Trial Designs to Satisfy Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
13-4 Guidance on Modifying JPCP Trial Designs to Satisfy Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
13-5 Guidance on Modifying CRCP Trial Designs to Satisfy Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 Chapter 1: Introduction | 1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The overall objective of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design is to provide the highway community
with a state-of-the-practice tool for the design and analysis of new and rehabilitated pavement struc-
tures, based on mechanistic-empirical (M-E) principles. This means that the design and analysis pro-
cedure calculates pavement responses (stresses, strains, and deections) and uses those responses to
compute incremental damage over time. The procedure empirically relates the cumulative damage to
observed pavement distresses. This M-E based procedure is shown in owchart form in
Figure 1-1.

AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design represents a major change in the way pavement design is per-
formed. AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design predicts multiple performance indicators (refer to
Figure 1-1) and it provides a direct tie between materials, structural design, construction, climate, trac,
and pavement management systems. Figures 1-2 and 1-3 are examples of the interrelationship between
these activities for hot mix asphalt (HMA) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) materials.

1.1 PURPOSE OF MANUAL

This manual of practice presents information to guide pavement design engineers in making decisions
and using AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design for new pavement and rehabilitation design. The man-
ual does not provide guidance on developing regional or local calibration factors for predicting pavement
distress and smoothness. A separate document, Guide for the Local Calibration of the Mechanistic-Em-
pirical Design, provides guidance for determining the local calibration factors for both HMA and PCC
pavement types (2).

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE MEPDG DESIGN PROCEDURE

AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design is a production-ready design tool to support the day-to-day
operations of public and private pavement engineers. When analyzing a pavement design project using
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design, whether new construction, an overlay, or restoration, an iterative
process that follows three basic steps is utilized:

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
2 | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide

1. Create a trial design for the project.

2. Run AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design to predict the key distresses and smoothness for the
trial design.
3. Review the predicted performance of the trial design against performance criteria and modify trial
design as needed in order to produce a feasible design that satisfies the performance criteria.
Pavement responses (stresses, strains, and deflections) are combined with other pavement, traffic, cli-
mate, and materials parameters to predict the progression of key pavement distresses and smoothness
loss over time. These outputs are the basis for checking the adequacy of a trial design.

AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software also includes an automated process to iterate to an

optimized thickness.

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 Chapter 1: Introduction | 3

New Pavement
STAGE 1EVALUATION Rehabilitation
Design and Analyses INPUTS FOR DESIGN Design and Analyses
(See Chapter 11) (See Chapter 5) (See Chapter 12)

Site Investigations [Section 8.3]:
Borings and Field Testing; Soils
Testing in Laboratory;
Drainage; Volume Change;
Frost Heave
Paving Materials
Climate/Environment Analysis
[See Section 8.2]: Pavement Evaluation [Chapter 9]:
Temperature and Moisture Distress Surveys; Nondestructive
Testing; Ride Quality Testing;
New Materials Analysis [See Chapter 10]: Borings and Cores; Materials
Hot Mix Asphalt Testing
Portland Cement Concrete
Cementitious Materials
Unbound Granular Materials
Soils/Embankment Materials Rehabilitation/Repair Materials

Traffic Analysis [See Section 8.1]:

Truck Classification and Volume
Design Criteria Axle Load Distribution Design Criteria
[See Section 7.1] Forecasting [See Section 7.1]

Analyze Performance STAGE 2ANALYSIS

of Pavement Design
Modify Design
Features or Reliability
Materials Analysis
[See Chapter 13] Pavement Response Model [See Section 7.2]
Calculate Stresses, Strains, Deflections
NO

Calculate Incremental Damage

Has Design Distress Transfer Functions and
Criteria Been Pavement Distress Models [See Chapter 5]
Met?
Distortion; Load Non-Load
Roughness;
Rutting Related Related
YES IRI
Faulting Cracking Cracking

STAGE 3STRATEGY SELECTION

Engineering and Constructability Life-Cycle

Viable Design Alternative
Analysis Cost Analysis

Select Policy Issues and Decisions

Strategy

Figure 1-1. Conceptual Flow Chart of the Three-Stage Design/Analysis Process for AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4 | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide

1993 Design Guide, ME Design Guide,

Empirical Thickness Design M-E-Based Feature Design
Procedure Procedure

1. Project Selection

2. Project Planning
HMA Layer Characterization:
3. Structural Design;
Structural Layer Coefficient
ASSUMED Material
Properties
HMA-Mixture Characterization:
Dynamic modulus, creep-
compliance, tensile strength,
Poissons ratio
Air voids, density, VMA,
effective asphalt content,
gradation, coefficient of
thermal expansion
Asphalt properties

No direct tie between resilient 4. Plan Preparation and

Direct tie between HMA
modulus or structural layer Project Specifications
properties to establish mix design
coefficient and mix design
criteria
criteria/properties
5. Bid Letting, Contractor
Selection; Low-Bid Process
Volumetric and Mechanical
Properties:
Density, air voids, effective
Volumetric Properties:
asphalt content, VMA,
Air voids, total asphalt
VFA, Gradation
content, VMA, VFA,
6. HMA-Mixture Dynamic modulus, flow
gradation,
Design time or number, creep
Asphalt properties
compliance, tensile strength
Asphalt properties

7. Quality Assurance
Volumetric Properties Plan Volumetric Properties

Contractor Quality Plan Agency Acceptance Specifications

As-Built Plans 8. Construction of Project As-Built Plans

9. Pavement Management Database: Distress Predictions;

No Distress Predictions
Structure and Material Properties Confirmation of Design
Expectations
10. Monitoring Performance and Distress over
Time; PMS Database

11. Data Feedback Through PMS Database

Figure 1-2. Typical Differences Between Empirical Design Procedures and an Integrated M-E Design
System, in Terms of HMA-Mixture Characterization

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 Chapter 1: Introduction | 5

Guide for Design of Pavement Structures ME Design Guide,

Empirical Thickness Design M-E-Based Feature Design
Procedure Procedure

1. Project Selection

PCC-Mixture Characterization:
2. Project Planning Elastic modulus,modulus of rupture,
Poissons ratio
Air content, unit weight,
water-cement ratio, amount
PCC Layer Characterization: of cement, gradation
3. Structural Design;
Modulus of Rupture Coefficient of thermal
ASSUMED Material
expansion
Properties
Cement type (properties)

4. Plan Preparation and

Limited tie between PCC layer Direct tie between PCC properties
Project Specifications
properties and mix design to establish mix design
criteria/properties criteria

5. Bid Letting, Contractor

Selection; Low-Bid Process
Volumetric and Mechanical
Properties:
Volumetric and Mechanical Unit weight, air content,
Properties: water-cement ratio, amount
Air content, water, slump, of cement, gradation
cementratio, gradation, 6. PCC-Mixture
Elastic modulus, modulus of rupture
Cement type Design
Coefficient of thermal expansion
Modulus of rupture Cement type (properties)

7. Quality Assurance
Volumetric and Volumetric and
Plan
Mechanical Properties Mechanical Properties

Contractor Quality Plan Agency Acceptance Specifications

As-Built Plans 8. Construction of Project As-Built Plans

9. Pavement Management Database: Distress Predictions;

No Distress Predictions
Structure and Material Properties Confirmation of Design
Expectations
10. Monitoring Performance and Distress Over
Time; PMS Database

11. Data Feedback Through PMS Database

Figure 1-3. Typical Differences Between Empirical Design Procedures and an Integrated M-E Design
System, in Terms of PCC-Mixture Characterization

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
6 | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide

The M-E approach makes it possible to optimize the design and to more fully ensure that specic
distress types will be limited to values less than the failure criteria within the design life of the pavement
structure. The basic steps included in the MEPDG design process are listed below and presented in ow
chart form in Figures 1-4 and 1-5. The steps shown in Figures 1-4 and 1-5 are referenced to the appro-
priate sections within this manual of practice.

1. Select a trial design strategy. The pavement designer may use an agency-specic design procedure to
determine the trial design cross section.

2. Select the appropriate performance indicator criteria (threshold value) and design reliability level
for the project. Design or performance indicator criteria should include magnitudes of key pavement
distresses and smoothness that trigger major rehabilitation or reconstruction. These criteria could be a
part of an agencys policies for deciding when to rehabilitate or reconstruct. AASHTOWare Pavement
ME Design allows the user to select the performance indicator criteria to be analyzed. The user can
uncheck the box next to the criteria that needs no evaluation. (See Section 4.1 for denitions.)

3. Obtain all inputs for the pavement trial design under consideration. This step may be a time-con-
suming eort, but it is what separates the MEPDG from other design procedures. The MEPDG allows
the designer to determine the inputs using a hierarchical structure in which the eort required to quan-
tify a given input is selected based on the importance of the project, importance of the input, and the
resources at the disposal of the user. The inputs required to run the software may be obtained using one
of three levels of eort and need not be consistent for all of the inputs in a given design. The hierarchical
input levels are dened in Sections 4 and 5. The inputs are grouped under six broad topicsgeneral
project information, design criteria, trac, climate, structure layering, and material properties (including
the design features).

4. Run AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software and examine the inputs and outputs for
engineering reasonableness. The software calculates changes in layer properties, damage, key distresses,
and the International Roughness Index (IRI) over the design life. The sub-steps for step 4 include:
a) Examine the input summary to ensure the inputs are correct and what the designer intended. This
step may be completed after each run, until the designer becomes more familiar with the program
and its inputs.
b) Examine the outputs that comprise the intermediate processspecic parameters, such as climate
values, monthly transverse load transfer eciency values for rigid pavement analysis, monthly layer
modulus values for exible and rigid pavement analysis to determine their reasonableness, and calcu-
lated performance indicators (pavement distresses and IRI). This step may be completed after each
run, until the designer becomes more familiar with the program. Review of important intermediate
processes and steps is presented in Section 13.
c) Assess whether the trial design has met each of the performance indicator criteria at the design
reliability level chosen for the project. As noted above, IRI is an output parameter predicted over
time and a measure of surface smoothness. IRI is calculated from other distress predictions (refer to
Figure 1-1), site factors, and initial IRI.

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 Chapter 1: Introduction | 7

d) If any of the criteria have not been met, determine how this deficiency can be remedied by altering
the materials used, the layering of materials, layer thickness, or other design features.

5. Revise the trial design, as needed. If the trial design has input errors, material output anomalies, or
has exceeded the failure criteria at the given level of reliability, revise the inputs/trial design and rerun
the program. An automated process to iterate to an optimized thickness is done by AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design to produce a feasible design.

General Project Design/Analysis Information

Section 3.2
Pavement Rehabilitation
Section 12.1

New Design or Lane Reconstruction

Section 11.1 for HMA-Surfaced Pavements
Section 11.2 for PCC-Surfaced Pavements A
See Figure 1-5a

1Select Trial Design

Strategy and Cross Section

2.aSelect Failure
2.bSelect Reliability Level
Limits or Design Criteria
Section 7.2
Section 7.1

Values selected in balance

with one another;
Chapter 8

3Select Hierarchical
Input Levels
Section 5.3

B
See Figure 1-5a

Figure 1-4. Flow Chart of the Steps That Are More Policy Decision Related and Are Needed to Com-
plete an Analysis of a Trial Design Strategy

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
8 | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide

B
See Figure 1-4

4Determine Site Conditions and Factors

(Chapters 8 and 9)

Existing Truck Traffic and Baseline Condition

Where Applicable
Axle Weights
4.aDetermine Truck Traffic Inputs Truck Volumes
(Section 8.1) Other Truck Factors

Project future truck traffic over design life

4.bDetermine Climate Inputs Latitude, Longitude, Elevation

(Section 8.2)
Identify appropiate weather situations
4.cDetermine Foundations and
Subgrade Soil Inputs Determine properties of the foundation and/or
(Section 8.3) embankment soils

A
See Figure 1-4

Establish overall condition of existing pavement

4.dPavement Evaluation for (Section 9.2)
Rehabilitation
(Chapter 9) Determine material properties of existing pavement layers
(Section 9.3)

5Determine Material Properties/Features D

of New Paving Layers (Chapter 10) See Figure 1-5b

HMA Layers (Section 10.2)

PCC Layers (Section 10.3)

Chemically Stabilized
Layers (Section 10.4)

Unbound Aggregate Layers

(Section 10.5)

C 6Execute AASHTOWare
Pavement ME Design
See Figure 1-5b

Figure 1-5a. Flow Chart of the Steps Needed to Complete an Analysis of a Trial Design Strategy

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 Chapter 1: Introduction | 9

7Interpretation and Analysis of

C Trial Design Strategy
See Figure 1-5a
(Chapter 13)

Check reliability of trial design;

Yes do calculated reliabilities No
exceed target reliability levels?

Unacceptable design; check calculated distresses and

supplemental information; if unacceptable, revise design
features of trial design and rerun AASHTOWare Pavement
Check calculated distresses and ME Design (Sections 13.4 and 13.5)
supplemental information
(Section 13.3)

D
See Figure 1-5a

Determine reason for

unreasonable parameters, make
corrections, and rerun
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design

Are there unreasonable

No calculated parameters; Yes
distresses, properties, etc.?

8Trial Design Strategy Is

Acceptable! Store Results

Figure 1-5b. Flow Chart of the Steps Needed to Complete an Analysis of a Trial Design Strategy

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
 Index | 195

Index

A C
AADTT 77, 189 C-values xii, 123
Abbreviations viii, ix, 189 calibration v, vi, vii, ix, x, 1, 13, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
absorptivity vi, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
aggregate base viii, x, xii, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
59, 70, 110, 123, 129, 131, 133, 134,135, 137,157, 68, 69, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, 92, 95, 100, 101, 103,
159, 187 111, 112, 116, 127, 130, 136, 138, 139, 140, 168,
aggregate base materials viii, 123, 134, 159 171, 191, 192, 193, 194
aggregate blend 113 calibration data set 30, 37
aggregate interlock 58, 59, 64, 138, 175, 177, 191 Calibration Guide 27
air void content 26, 114, 137 California Bearing Ratio 11, 82, 100, 189
air voids 4, 12, 42, 98, 101, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, CBR 82, 98, 99, 100, 123, 126, 132, 189
135, 159, 186, 193 cement-treated base layers viii
alkali silica reactivity 26 chemically stabilized materials viii, xii, 116, 121, 122,
analysis parameters 153, 166 151,193
AREA method-based procedures 106 classication properties 89, 103, 123
asphalt classication 102 classications of the roadway xi, 74
asphalt permeable-treated base layers viii climate vii, 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 66, 75, 81, 82,
asphalt permeable yreated base mixes 109 87, 93, 140, 173, 184, 185, 193
asphalt treated permeable base 21, 26, 189 composite pavements xii, 20, 24, 86, 92, 143, 145, 146,
ASR 26 149, 152, 153, 164
ATPB 22, 25, 26, 27, 133, 189 condition assessment viii, xi, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93
Atterberg limits 83, 91, 98, 103, 126 conductivity vi, 13, 36, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 122,
automated vehicle classiers xi 124, 125, 127
AVC xi, 76, 77, 78, 79, 189 contact friction 53, 54, 101, 137, 138, 171, 172, 174, 178
average annual daily truck trac 77, 189 crack and seat 22, 96, 118, 145, 146, 152, 169
axle-weight 75 crack LTE 34, 64, 140, 141, 152, 158, 165, 177, 185, 188
axle spacing 33, 34, 78 CRCP x, xii, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 34, 36, 61, 63, 65, 67,
68, 94, 102, 104, 117, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142,
B 145, 147, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,
158, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 176, 177, 178, 179,
base/slab friction coecient 140
185, 188, 189, 191, 193, 194
base erodability 139
creep compliance 4, 12, 36, 38, 47, 102, 110, 111, 112,
bedrock 21, 24, 25, 110, 131, 132, 137, 138
114, 187, 192
best t-based procedures 106
critical factor 34, 53, 141, 177
bottom-up transverse cracking 33, 54
critical pavement responses 17, 30, 37, 39, 46
Bradburys curling/warping 63, 191
CTB bases 28
break and seat 22, 23, 118, 145, 146, 152
CTB layers 45

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
196 | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide
D F
data element 75
DCP 82, 83, 89, 91, 95, 98, 100, 103, 123, 127, 159, 161,
189
default values xi, 31, 32, 75, 79, 109, 111, 112, 113, 124,
125, 126, 127, 132
deection basin tests 18, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 102, 104,
123, 127, 161
deection hardening 96
deection softening 96
density 4, 12, 36, 57, 82, 83, 93, 98, 101, 103, 104, 110,
112, 116, 123, 124, 125, 126, 131, 132, 187, 191
design-performance criteria vii, 71
design/analysis life vii, 69
destructive testing 87, 97
destructive tests 90, 97, 98
diamond grinding x, 24, 25, 62, 90, 147, 166, 170, 174
distress vii, ix, x, xi, xii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18,
19, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 45, 51,
53, 65, 67, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 83, 86, 87,
88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 103, 104, 105, 107,
130, 136, 139, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150,
151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 166, 170,
171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 181, 182, 184, 185,
187, 188, 193
distress prediction vii, 4, 5, 6, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 37,
53, 69, 72, 74, 81, 83, 182
distress severities x, 162
distress types xi, 6, 32, 74, 89, 104, 105, 150, 181, 184
dowel bar retrot 24
dowel stiness factor 59, 194
drainage 3, 15, 17, 18, 23, 26, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90,
91, 92, 93, 130, 132, 133, 136, 137, 149, 150, 151,
160, 166, 172, 174, 175, 179, 187
drying shrinkage 63, 185, 188, 194
dual tire spacing 80
dynamic cone penetrometer 13, 82, 98, 100, 161, 189
dynamic modulus 4, 12, 19, 36, 38, 42, 53, 96, 102, 110,
111, 112, 114, 155, 167, 174, 178, 183, 187, 191
E 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 52, 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 65, 67,
edge drains 24, 91, 101, 133, 159, 170, 174, 175
EICM 19, 37, 38, 83, 173, 189
elastic modulus xii, 5, 19, 36, 46, 53, 63, 95, 102, 106,
108, 116, 117, 118, 121, 127, 131, 132, 152, 156,
159, 161, 164, 167, 169, 170, 172, 174, 178, 179,
183, 191
embankment viii, xii, 3, 8, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 40, 123,
124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 137 187
empirical design procedures ix, 4, 5
endurance limit 30, 43
engineered embankments viii, 123
equivalent single-axle loads 19
erosion 33, 34, 64, 88, 139, 141, 175, 184, 188
ESAL 19, 183, 184, 189
2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
falling weight deectometer 14, 96, 106, 189
fatigue cracks 44, 45, 90
fatigue damage ix, 30, 33, 34, 38, 44, 50, 53, 54, 61, 65,
141, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 167, 170, 179,
185, 189, 192
faulting vi, x, 3, 18, 33, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66,
72, 73, 77, 87, 90, 94, 104, 138, 139, 149, 152,
164, 166, 168, 171, 172, 173, 175, 182, 184, 185,
191, 192, 192, 194
Federal Highway Administration iv, 13, 14, 15, 84, 189
FHWA 14, 15, 32, 75, 89, 189
lter fabrics 130
exible pavement vi, vii, viii, ix, xi, xii, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 26, 27,28, 30, 35, 37, 38, 42, 48, 50, 51, 52, 70,
71, 79, 83, 94, 100, 102, 103, 105, 122, 125, 129,
130, 134, 136, 148, 152, 153, 165, 168, 169, 170,
171, 172, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 182, 183, 184
exural strength 12, 36, 98, 102, 117, 118, 121, 122, 172,
173, 175, 183
ow chart ix, x, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 131, 145, 158
foundation vii, x, 8, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25,
32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 65, 67, 75, 82, 83, 87, 90, 92,
95, 98, 103, 106, 109, 123, 126, 129, 130, 133,
138,152, 155, 159, 161, 163, 183, 187, 193, 194
freeze-thaw cycles 66, 87, 192
frost heave-thaw weakening 18
full-depth reclamation 23
functional classications xi, 74, 78
FWD 87, 94, 96, 104, 106, 111, 112, 121, 123, 124, 127,
155, 156, 159, 167, 169, 189
G
geogrids 27, 130
geotextiles 130
global calibration vi, ix, x, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36,
37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52, 54,
55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68 ,69, 92, 100,
103, 111, 138, 171
global calibration process ix, x, 20, 23, 26, 27, 36, 37, 41,
68, 92, 103
GPR 13, 18, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 95, 105, 106, 107, 189
Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 5, 13, 74, 129
H
heat capacity vi, 36, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 122
hierarchical input vii, viii, xi, 6, 11, 31, 35, 90, 91, 109,
169
hierarchical structure 6
high-plasticity soil 18
high-tensile stress 34

HMA vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35,
36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,
50, 51, 52, 69, 70, 71, 77, 86, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97,
98, 100, 101, 102, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113,
114, 115, 121, 123, 129, 131, 133, 134, 135, 137,
141, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154,
155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166,
167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 178, 179, 183,
184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195
HMA-layer thickness ratio 47
HMA-mixture characterization ix, 4
HMA-surfaced pavements vii, 7, 18, 20, 32, 51, 145, 148
HMA mixtures viii, 26, 27, 30, 39, 43, 91, 101, 102, 109,
110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 129, 134, 187, 191, 192
HMA overlay design vii, ix, xii, 20, 22, 146, 156, 164
hot mix asphalt 1, 12, 189, 191
I 169, 179, 185
in-place pulverization 22, 23
in-place recycling 23, 110, 147, 148, 150, 151, 153
in-place stiness 82
incremental damage 1, 3, 27, 30, 35, 42, 43, 70, 76, 77,
194
incremental damage index approach 42
incremental distortion 39
indirect tensile strength 36, 38, 63, 102, 110, 112, 114,
117, 187, 191
input level vii, xi, xii, 6, 7, 11, 19, 30, 31, 36, 47, 49, 89,
90, 99, 101, 103, 105, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114,
115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126,
146, 147, 169
input parameters xi, xii, 29, 77, 78, 92, 112, 113, 114,
115, 118, 119, 120, 123, 125, 127, 186
integrated climatic model 14, 19, 189
integrated M-E Design ix, 4, 5
interchanges 86
interface friction 27, 100, 148, 151
International Roughness Index 6, 189
intersections 76, 86
IRI ix, x, xii, 3, 6, 17, 18, 32, 51, 52, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71,
72, 73, 74, 90, 94, 130, 136, 138, 141, 146, 148, 153,
156, 157, 166, 171, 174, 182, 184, 185, 187, 188,
189, 192, 193
IRI Values ix, x, 52, 67, 68, 153
ISLAB2000 30
J material density variations 104
Jacob Uzan Layered Elastic Analysis 30
joint random spacing 139
joint reseal 24
joint skew 139
joint spacing 23, 27, 94, 138, 167, 168, 172, 173, 175,
188
2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Index | 197
JPCP ix, x, xii, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 33, 53, 55, 56,
61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 72, 94, 96, 101, 104, 136, 137,
138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 147, 149, 151, 152,
153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 164, 165, 166, 167,
168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179,
182, 184, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193
JPCP Slabs ix, 55, 152
JULEA 30, 37
L
lane reconstruction ix, 7, 17, 21, 24
lane widths 81
lateral distortions 159
lateral wander of axle loads 81
layer modulus viii, xii, 6, 37, 89, 90, 96, 102, 103, 104,
105, 123, 135, 161, 183
layer thickness ix, 7, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, 47, 87, 89, 90,
91, 92, 97, 98, 105, 107, 129, 134, 135, 156, 161,
LCCA 165, 190
lean concrete viii, 23, 24, 27, 59, 99, 101, 110, 116, 121,
122, 137, 138, 190
level of condence 76
life-cycle cost 3, 19, 163, 165, 166, 190
life-cycle cost analysis 3, 19, 163, 165, 166, 190
lime cement y ash 110, 121, 122, 137
load-related alligator cracking 18
load-related longitudinal cracking 18
load transfer eciency 6, 15, 58, 94, 96, 107, 176, 190,
192
local calibration 1, 13, 23, 26, 27, 29, 36, 37, 40, 46, 48,
63, 95, 116, 130, 139, 154, 194
long-life pavements 30
long-term pavement performance 14, 17, 70, 190
longitudinal cracking ix, 18, 32, 42, 43, 45, 105, 134, 142,
149, 150, 177, 184, 187
LTE xi, 3, 7, 17, 18, 19, 34, 53, 58, 59, 64, 72, 77, 86, 89,
90, 93, 94, 96, 107, 124, 130, 138, 139, 140, 141,
142, 151, 152, 155, 158, 165, 166, 167, 175, 176,
177, 178, 182, 184, 185, 188, 190, 192
LTPP 14, 15, 17, 26, 32, 34, 37, 41, 51, 65, 66, 74, 75,
78, 79, 92, 95, 103, 104, 106, 125, 126, 132, 190
LTPP Distress Identification Manual 95
M
maintenance 69, 71, 72, 86, 87, 91, 93, 103, 133, 148,
184
material properties viii, xii, 4, 5, 6, 8, 19, 36, 40, 85, 101,
106, 109, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 119, 122, 123,
125, 126, 127, 144
maximum dry density 123, 124, 125, 126
maximum faulting 57, 58, 59, 60
mean distress 73, 74
198 | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide
mean modulus 167
MEPDG v, vi, vii, viii, 1, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26,
27, 35, 39, 42, 50, 52, 73, 85, 96, 109, 112, 114,
115, 123, 124, 125, 129, 143, 145, 150, 151, 152,
154, 155, 157, 181, 190
Miners hypothesis 43, 53
MnRoad experiment 37
mud-jacking 147
N 176, 177, 178, 179, 185, 188, 193
National Cooperative Highway Research Program 14,
15, 190
National Highway Institute 13, 14, 15, 190
natural soil 137
NCHRP 14, 15, 45, 75, 78, 83, 111, 112, 116, 124, 190
NDT 89, 96, 151, 190
NHI 13, 14, 15, 133, 144, 190
noise attenuation values 26
non-materials input data xi, 94
non-destructive deection testing 117, 190
O rehabilitation viii, x, xi, xii, 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22,
optimum moisture content 39, 123, 124, 125, 126, 132
P 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 123, 126,
parameter xi, xii, 2, 6, 9, 14, 17, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 39, 46, 48, 50, 54, 64, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82,
95, 100, 105, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118,
119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 137, 140, 141,
150, 151, 153, 158, 161, 165, 166, 172, 177, 183,
184, 185, 186, 187, 191
pavement evaluation data viii, 103, 153
pavement evaluation program xi, 85, 90, 91
pavement preservation programs 27
PCC vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, 1, 5, 7, 8, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 48, 50, 51, 52,
53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 66, 69, 71, 79, 87,
88, 89, 90, 91, 96, 98, 101, 102, 106, 110, 116,
117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 136, 137, 139, 145, 146,
148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,
158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,
168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177,
178, 179, 183, 185, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195
PCC overlay vii, viii, ix, 23, 25, 27, 35, 53, 117, 145, 150,
155, 164, 165, 168, 171, 174, 176, 178, 179
PCC-surfaced pavements vii, 7, 23, 33, 71
PCC pavement types 1
PCC Slab Static Elastic Modulus xii, 156, 169
performance indicator criteria 6
performance indicators vii, 1, 6, 17, 19, 32, 33, 35, 71, 77,
171, 176
performance values viii, 184
2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
permanent curl/warp eective temperature dierence
139, 140
plasticity index of the soil 51
Poissons Ratio 4, 5, 13, 36, 63, 106, 111, 112, 115, 117,
118, 121, 122, 124, 126
Portland cement 1, 3, 12, 15, 18, 20, 60, 133, 190
pre-overlay treatment 92, 144, 145, 147, 148, 152, 153
protocols and standards vii, 11
punchouts x, 18, 34, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 94, 104, 140, 141,
147, 149, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 164, 166, 169,
R
RAP ix, 23, 24, 34, 38, 58, 82, 92, 110, 112, 137, 138,
156, 159, 183, 185, 190
realignment projects 75, 76
reconstruction ix, 6, 17, 21, 23, 24, 30, 69, 71, 123, 143,
147, 148, 150, 158, 174, 178, 179
referenced documents vii, 11, 13, 15
reference temperature 113, 115
regression equations 17, 31, 103, 126, 132
regression tting xi, 48, 50
23, 25, 29, 30, 32, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 83, 85,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,
143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153,
155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165,
166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175,
176, 177, 178, 179
rehabilitation design vii, x, xi, xii, 1, 3, 18, 75, 83, 85, 86,
87, 89, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
104, 105, 107, 109, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149,
150, 151, 153, 155, 157, 159, 161, 163, 164, 165,
167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, 177, 179
reinforcement depth 140
reliability vii, viii, x, xi, xii, 3, 6, 7, 9, 17, 19, 30, 56, 71,
72, 73, 74, 77, 79, 81, 83, 156, 171, 173, 176, 181,
182, 190, 193
remaining life x, 90, 103, 158, 161, 162
residual error 30, 41, 44, 45, 56, 74, 193
resilient modulus xii, 11, 15, 18, 19, 27, 35, 36, 38, 40,
82, 83, 93, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 121, 122, 123,
124, 125, 126, 130, 132, 134, 155, 159, 183, 187,
192
resources 6, 35
restoration vii, 1, 23, 24, 27, 69, 143, 154, 164, 166, 167,
170, 174, 189
rigid pavement vi, vii, viii, ix, xi, 6, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 35, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53,
57, 71, 79, 104, 106, 116, 125, 129, 136, 143, 146,
147, 151, 152, 153, 170, 171, 175, 176, 179, 182,
183, 184, 185
roughness 3, 6, 13, 14, 29, 51, 130, 147, 157, 184, 189

rubblization process x, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163
rut depth vi, 14, 18, 33, 39, 41, 51, 71, 72, 192, 193, 194
rutting vi, ix, 3, 18, 33, 39, 40, 41, 74, 91, 94, 97, 98, 100,
107, 146, 147, 149, 151, 153, 157, 158, 159, 184,
186, 187
S 122
sample size xi, 75, 76
saturated hydraulic conductivity 36, 124, 125, 127
severity levels xi, 89, 94, 104
set temperature vi, 120, 139, 140, 177, 178
shoulder condition 86, 93
skid resistance 26, 93
SMA viii, 104, 105, 109, 110, 133, 167, 168, 175, 177,
190
smoothness vii, x, xii, 1, 2, 6, 17, 18, 19, 32, 35, 51, 65,
66, 67, 72, 73, 81, 86, 87, 93, 95, 130, 136, 141,
147, 148, 156, 157, 158, 164, 166, 171, 173, 175,
176, 177, 181, 184, 185, 187, 188
smoothness degradation 51
software v, vi, xi, 2, 6, 14, 19, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 37, 46,
58, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 92,
95, 98, 111, 112, 125, 127, 129, 132, 134, 135,
139, 143, 146, 154, 155, 156, 167, 170, 173, 181,
183, 184
Soil Conservation Service Series 82, 92
soils vii, x, 3, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 26, 41, 82, 83, 84, 91,
92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 100, 110, 122, 125, 130, 131,
132, 133, 159, 187, 192
soil strata layers 89, 95
spalling 18, 26, 65, 66, 88, 149, 152, 175, 193
specications vii, 4, 5, 11, 14, 26, 69, 112, 113, 124, 126,
132, 158, 164, 166, 174
specic gravity 11, 12, 101, 111, 113, 124, 125
stabilized base layers viii, 20, 109
staged construction 27
standard error 27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 37, 41, 44, 45, 47, 52,
56, 61, 65, 66, 68, 72, 73, 74, 76, 190, 193
strain hardening 39, 153
structural deciencies xii, 153, 164, 165
structurally deteriorated 29, 69
structural response model 30, 39, 42
structure layering 6
subbase layers x, 23, 27, 134, 135, 136, 137
subgrade layer 20, 21, 24, 69, 129, 132, 133, 155, 167
subgrade soil material xii, 123, 124, 125
subgrade soils vii, 82, 83, 110, 130
Superpave Gyratory Compactor 12
surface distortion 39, 104, 147, 148
surface distress 51, 69, 92, 103, 107
surface shortwave absorptivity vi, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119
survey 3, 18, 83, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, 103,
107, 155, 162, 170
2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Index | 199
T
temperature gradient 23, 33, 34, 57, 65, 79, 139, 188
tensile creep 47, 192
test protocols vii, xi, xii, 11, 85, 109, 111, 116, 117, 121,
123, 124
thermal conductivity vi, 13, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121,
thermal contraction 63, 111, 113, 115
three-stage design ix, 3
threshold values xi, 29, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86
tied concrete shoulder 138, 139
tire pressure 36, 75, 81
top-down cracking ix, 34, 45, 53, 170, 172, 191, 192, 194
trac v, vii, xi, 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 14, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 29, 30,
31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 64,
65, 67, 69, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 86, 88, 92,
93, 94, 95, 98, 105, 110, 111, 113, 123, 136, 138,
140, 146, 147, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,
163, 168, 172, 175, 177, 179, 183, 184, 189, 190,
197
trac opening dates vii, 29, 69
transverse cracking ix, 18, 23, 33, 34, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53,
54, 55, 56, 66, 72, 94, 105, 138, 139, 141, 154,
157, 158, 168, 170, 171, 172, 175, 182, 184, 185,
187, 191, 193
transverse joint faulting x, 33, 56, 57, 61, 62, 171, 172,
192, 194
trenches 41, 89, 91, 97, 98, 146
trial design viii, ix, xi, xii, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, 26, 30, 35,
37, 63, 69,71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 129, 132, 135, 136,
143, 156, 158, 171, 172, 173, 175, 181, 182, 183,
185, 187, 188
truck-volume distribution 75, 78
truck trac vii, xi, 8, 26, 31, 32, 36, 38, 42, 54, 75, 76,
77, 78, 79, 80, 110, 111, 113, 123, 147, 153, 184,
189, 190
truck trac classication 32, 190
truck trac terms vii, 31
TTC xi, 32, 78, 79, 80, 190
TTC groups xi, 32, 78, 80
U
ultimate shrinkage 117, 120, 139, 140, 179
unbound aggregate base materials viii, 123
unbound aggregates 23, 24
V
VFA 4, 111, 112, 114, 135, 190, 193
volumetric properties 4, 36, 86, 101, 103, 110, 112, 113,
135
volumetric tests 83
200 | MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide

W
weather stations 19, 36, 81, 82
weighing-in-motion 75, 190
Westergaards nominal stress factor 63, 195
WIM xi, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 190

Y
Youngs modulus 104, 105

Z
zero-stress temperature 63, 117, 141, 178, 194

2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.